DOCSLIB.ORG

The Different Theories of Special Relativity: Poincare's Theory Roger J Anderton [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Different Theories of Special Relativity: Poincare's Theory Roger J Anderton R.J.Anderton@Btinternet.Com The different theories of Special Relativity: Poincare's theory Roger J Anderton [email protected] There are two ways of looking at Poincare's theory as (1) the true theory of relativity instead of Einstein 1905 theory, with Einstein 1905 theory needing correcting or (2) as a different theory to Einstein 1905 theory. When I have talked to people pro and anti Einstein's relativity, there has been a great deal of confusion over what special relativity 'is.' In the teaching of special relativity this difference is glossed over and it can easily be taught to students that special relativity is Poincare's theory without explicitly stating to students that is what they have been taught and instead letting them be deceived that they have been taught Einstein's theory. (1) First look at Poincare's theory as being the true theory of special relativity instead of Einstein 1905 theory, with Einstein needing to be corrected: There has been long dispute over who should get credit for relativity theory, namely in regards to Einstein's theory of 1905 special relativity. As Yves Gingras [1] points out: “ in 1953 of the second volume of E. T. Whittaker’s A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity—in which the British mathematician strongly argued against Einstein’s “paternity” of relativity, which he christened the “Poincare´-Lorentz theory”—the debate did not really hit the newspapers and register with the general public until 2005, when it was suggested that Einstein had in fact “plagiarized”Poincare´.” It might then be that revision to our history books should be made and what is credited to Einstein in 1905 should go to Poincare. Gingras says [1] : “As to the probable outcome of that struggle, it is not impossible that future physics textbooks will raise Poincare´ to the level of Einstein and—at least in France—relabel what is now known as “relativity theory” the “Einstein-Poincare´ theory,” or the “Poincare´-Lorentz theory,” as Whittaker suggested, or even, in a more ecumenical fashion, the “Lorentz-Poincare´-Einstein theory” One of the things that the Poincare theory or Poincare-Lorentz theory or Poincare- Einstein theory brings to prominence is conventionalism. Conventionalism According to Scott [2] : “……..philosophers of science credit Poincaré with one of the principal theories of the foundations of scientific knowledge, known as conventionalism, and presented in the volume Science and Hypothesis (1902).” Scott picking upon conventionalism [3] : “According to the conventionalist doctrine of space elaborated by the French philosopher-scientist Henri Poincare in the 1890s, the geometry of physical space is a matter of definition, not of fact. Poincare’s Hertz- inspired view of the role of hypothesis in science guided his interpretation of the theory of relativity (1905), which he found to be in violation of the axiom of free mobility of invariable solids. In an effort to save the Euclidean geometry that relied on this axiom, Poincare extended the purview of his doctrine of space to cover both space and time. The centerpiece of this new doctrine is what he called the “principle of physical relativity,” which holds the laws of mechanics to be covariant with respect to a certain group of transformations. For Poincare, the invariance group of classical mechanics defined physical space and time (Galilei space-time), but he admitted that one could also define physical space and time in virtue of the invariance group of relativistic mechanics (Minkowski space-time). Either way, physical space and time are the result of a convention.” Now all those issues are confused mess if we go by Einstein 1905 theory and ignore what was before. The priority dispute over relativity theory spills over to how to understand the theory. Far as I am concerned a bit of manipulation and can do by either convention of light-speed in vacuum constancy or universal time. Thus those who too rigidly stick to Einstein don't understand the theory as it is supposed to be understood, and refuse to accept many of Einstein's mistakes. Poincare's theory is more correct than Einstein's theory. Einstein’s theory is full of mistakes which need to be stripped away to get us back to Poincare. Einstein's mistakes are mainly mathematical. Einstein's maths teacher was Minkowski, and Minkowski was claiming superiority in maths over Einstein in a 1907 lecture as Scott says [4]: “In October 1907, Minkowski wrote to Einstein to request an offprint of his Annalen article on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, for use in his seminar on the partial differential equations of physics, jointly conducted by Hilbert. During the following Easter vacation, he gave a short series of lectures on “New Ideas on the Basic Laws of Mechanics” for the benefit of science teachers. In what seem to be notes to these holiday lectures, Einstein’s knowledge of mathematics was subject to criticism. Minkowski reminded his audience that he was qualified to make this evaluation, since Einstein had him to thank for his education in mathematics. From Zurich Polytechnic, Minkowski added, a complete knowledge of mathematics could not be obtained.” i.e. Einstein's maths mistakes and Minkowski as maths teacher of Einstein claimed authority of being qualified enough to deal with them. Einstein nowadays has so much esteem with his fans, that many of his fans refuse to accept Einstein's maths mistakes; such is corrupting effect of those hero worshipping. Scott continues [4]: “This frank assessment of Einstein’s skills in mathematics, Minkowski explained,was meant to establish his right to evaluate Einstein’s work, since he did not know how much his authority carried with respect to “the validity of judgements in physical things,”which he wanted “now to submit.”” i.e. Minkowski was an authority in maths but not in physics. Scott [4]: “A pattern was established here, in which Minkowski would first suggest that Einstein’s work was mathematically incomplete, and then call upon his authority in mathematics in order to validate his judgements in theoretical physics.” The “mathematically incomplete” is just a fancy way of saying Einstein's maths was a bit messed up. Scott [4] : “While Minkowski implicitly recognized Einstein’s competence in questions of physics, he did not yet appreciate how much Europe’s leading physicists admired the work of his former student. Even in his fief of Gottingen, Minkowski knew he could not expect any authority to be accorded to him in theoretical physics, yet this awareness of his own lack of credentials in physics did not prevent him from lecturing on the principle of relativity.” The lecture was 1907, two years after Einstein published his 1905 paper on special relativity, I would not think Einstein had too much authority in physics community at that time, he was only just starting his meteoritic rise to stardom. Now look at it the other way: (2) Second way of looking at it is as Poincare's theory is not Einstein 1905 theory: Example now being looked at of claim that Poincare's theory is not the true theory of relativity: Katzir tells us [5]: “Although Poincaré’s aim and theory were similar to those of Albert Einstein (1879–1955) in creating his special theory of relativity, Poincaré’s relativistic physics should not be seen as an attempt to achieve Einstein’s theory but as an independent endeavor.” Katzir opinion is: “I believe, by contrast, that Poincaré’s work should not be seen as an attempt to formulate special relativity, but as an independent attempt to resolve questions in electrodynamics. The superiority of Einstein’s theory over Poincaré’s was not evident around 1905.” So even though Poincare’s theory is deemed similar to Einstein’s SR (special relativity), Katzir does not want to see Poincare’s theory as SR, and also mistakenly think Einstein 1905 theory is superior; this is because of all the propaganda around Einstein promoting him as a genius, so any evidence contrary to the propaganda - a believer (in that propaganda) wants to dismiss. My articles have dealt with the many mistakes made by Einstein; now Poincare with his similar theory to Einstein’s had less mistakes and hence be a better formed theory. So the real difference might be that both Poincare and Einstein had the same theory, but Einstein had lots more of the mistakes. Now Katzir points out a contrary opinion to his, which was dealt with in the first part of this article: Katzir: “Edmund T.Whittaker opened the debate about Poincaré’s contribution to special relativity with his provocative claim that special relativity had been discovered by Poincaré and Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853–1928) already in 1904.” So if SR is really due to Poincare and Lorentz, then Einstein’s version of it might just be a corruption of their work. (And that is my proposal – based on studying Einstein – he got a lot of things wrong. Einstein did not cite the sources he was working from, so it seems likely he was working on Poincare-Lorentz theory then he might have got a lot wrong which was not in the original theory. ) Katzir: “A decade later, Gerald Holton analyzed Poincaré’s theory, pointing out the thematic differences between Poincaré’s and Einstein’s work that had prevented Poincaré from creating special relativity.” Those “differences” most likely being the things that Einstein got wrong. So Holton is looking at Einstein’s theory as SR with Poincare not achieving SR, but what Einstein did to get to SR was just make mistakes. Katzir point out: “Stanley Goldberg and Camillo Cuvaj followed Holton in identifying differences between Poincaré’s and Einstein’s concepts and advancing further reasons for Poincaré’s failure to create special relativity.” If we look at it as Poincare’s theory was better than Einstein’s then really it was Einstein’s failure.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Mathematical Derivation of the General Relativistic Schwarzschild
    A Mathematical Derivation of the General Relativistic Schwarzschild Metric An Honors thesis presented to the faculty of the Departments of Physics and Mathematics East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors Scholar and Honors-in-Discipline Programs for a Bachelor of Science in Physics and Mathematics by David Simpson April 2007 Robert Gardner, Ph.D. Mark Giroux, Ph.D. Keywords: differential geometry, general relativity, Schwarzschild metric, black holes ABSTRACT The Mathematical Derivation of the General Relativistic Schwarzschild Metric by David Simpson We briefly discuss some underlying principles of special and general relativity with the focus on a more geometric interpretation. We outline Einstein’s Equations which describes the geometry of spacetime due to the influence of mass, and from there derive the Schwarzschild metric. The metric relies on the curvature of spacetime to provide a means of measuring invariant spacetime intervals around an isolated, static, and spherically symmetric mass M, which could represent a star or a black hole. In the derivation, we suggest a concise mathematical line of reasoning to evaluate the large number of cumbersome equations involved which was not found elsewhere in our survey of the literature. 2 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................. 2 1 Introduction to Relativity ...................... 4 1.1 Minkowski Space ....................... 6 1.2 What is a black hole? ..................... 11 1.3 Geodesics and Christoffel Symbols ............. 14 2 Einstein’s Field Equations and Requirements for a Solution .17 2.1 Einstein’s Field Equations .................. 20 3 Derivation of the Schwarzschild Metric .............. 21 3.1 Evaluation of the Christoffel Symbols .......... 25 3.2 Ricci Tensor Components .................
    [Show full text]
  • Hypercomplex Algebras and Their Application to the Mathematical
    Hypercomplex Algebras and their application to the mathematical formulation of Quantum Theory Torsten Hertig I1, Philip H¨ohmann II2, Ralf Otte I3 I tecData AG Bahnhofsstrasse 114, CH-9240 Uzwil, Schweiz 1 [email protected] 3 [email protected] II info-key GmbH & Co. KG Heinz-Fangman-Straße 2, DE-42287 Wuppertal, Deutschland 2 [email protected] March 31, 2014 Abstract Quantum theory (QT) which is one of the basic theories of physics, namely in terms of ERWIN SCHRODINGER¨ ’s 1926 wave functions in general requires the field C of the complex numbers to be formulated. However, even the complex-valued description soon turned out to be insufficient. Incorporating EINSTEIN’s theory of Special Relativity (SR) (SCHRODINGER¨ , OSKAR KLEIN, WALTER GORDON, 1926, PAUL DIRAC 1928) leads to an equation which requires some coefficients which can neither be real nor complex but rather must be hypercomplex. It is conventional to write down the DIRAC equation using pairwise anti-commuting matrices. However, a unitary ring of square matrices is a hypercomplex algebra by definition, namely an associative one. However, it is the algebraic properties of the elements and their relations to one another, rather than their precise form as matrices which is important. This encourages us to replace the matrix formulation by a more symbolic one of the single elements as linear combinations of some basis elements. In the case of the DIRAC equation, these elements are called biquaternions, also known as quaternions over the complex numbers. As an algebra over R, the biquaternions are eight-dimensional; as subalgebras, this algebra contains the division ring H of the quaternions at one hand and the algebra C ⊗ C of the bicomplex numbers at the other, the latter being commutative in contrast to H.
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN EARMAN* and CLARK GL YMUURT the GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT AS a TEST of GENERAL RELATIVITY: HISTORY and ANALYSIS
    JOHN EARMAN* and CLARK GL YMUURT THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT AS A TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: HISTORY AND ANALYSIS CHARLES St. John, who was in 1921 the most widely respected student of the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectra, began his contribution to a symposium in Nncure on Einstein’s theories of relativity with the following statement: The agreement of the observed advance of Mercury’s perihelion and of the eclipse results of the British expeditions of 1919 with the deductions from the Einstein law of gravitation gives an increased importance to the observations on the displacements of the absorption lines in the solar spectrum relative to terrestrial sources, as the evidence on this deduction from the Einstein theory is at present contradictory. Particular interest, moreover, attaches to such observations, inasmuch as the mathematical physicists are not in agreement as to the validity of this deduction, and solar observations must eventually furnish the criterion.’ St. John’s statement touches on some of the reasons why the history of the red shift provides such a fascinating case study for those interested in the scientific reception of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. In contrast to the other two ‘classical tests’, the weight of the early observations was not in favor of Einstein’s red shift formula, and the reaction of the scientific community to the threat of disconfirmation reveals much more about the contemporary scientific views of Einstein’s theory. The last sentence of St. John’s statement points to another factor that both complicates and heightens the interest of the situation: in contrast to Einstein’s deductions of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion and of the bending of light, considerable doubt existed as to whether or not the general theory did entail a red shift for the solar spectrum.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Relativity and Applications: a Simple Introduction
    The Downtown Review Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 3 December 2018 The Theory of Relativity and Applications: A Simple Introduction Ellen Rea Cleveland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/tdr Part of the Engineering Commons, and the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Rea, Ellen. "The Theory of Relativity and Applications: A Simple Introduction." The Downtown Review. Vol. 5. Iss. 1 (2018) . Available at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/tdr/vol5/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Downtown Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rea: The Theory of Relativity and Applications What if I told you that time can speed up and slow down? What if I told you that everything you think you know about gravity is a lie? When Albert Einstein presented his theory of relativity to the world in the early 20th century, he was proposing just that. And what’s more? He’s been proven correct. Einstein’s theory has two parts: special relativity, which deals with inertial reference frames and general relativity, which deals with the curvature of space- time. A surface level study of the theory and its consequences followed by a look at some of its applications will provide an introduction to one of the most influential scientific discoveries of the last century.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert Einstein and Relativity
    The Himalayan Physics, Vol.1, No.1, May 2010 Albert Einstein and Relativity Kamal B Khatri Department of Physics, PN Campus, Pokhara, Email: [email protected] Albert Einstein was born in Germany in 1879.In his the follower of Mach and his nascent concept helped life, Einstein spent his most time in Germany, Italy, him to enter the world of relativity. Switzerland and USA.He is also a Nobel laureate and worked mostly in theoretical physics. Einstein In 1905, Einstein propounded the “Theory of is best known for his theories of special and general Special Relativity”. This theory shows the observed relativity. I will not be wrong if I say Einstein a independence of the speed of light on the observer’s deep thinker, a philosopher and a real physicist. The state of motion. Einstein deduced from his concept philosophies of Henri Poincare, Ernst Mach and of special relativity the twentieth century’s best David Hume infl uenced Einstein’s scientifi c and known equation, E = m c2.This equation suggests philosophical outlook. that tiny amounts of mass can be converted into huge amounts of energy which in deed, became the Einstein at the age of 4, his father showed him a boon for the development of nuclear power. pocket compass, and Einstein realized that there must be something causing the needle to move, despite Einstein realized that the principle of special relativity the apparent ‘empty space’. This shows Einstein’s could be extended to gravitational fi elds. Since curiosity to the space from his childhood. The space Einstein believed that the laws of physics were local, of our intuitive understanding is the 3-dimensional described by local fi elds, he concluded from this that Euclidean space.
    [Show full text]
  • Derivation of Generalized Einstein's Equations of Gravitation in Some
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 5 February 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202102.0157.v1 Derivation of generalized Einstein's equations of gravitation in some non-inertial reference frames based on the theory of vacuum mechanics Xiao-Song Wang Institute of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, Henan Province, 454000, China (Dated: Dec. 15, 2020) When solving the Einstein's equations for an isolated system of masses, V. Fock introduces har- monic reference frame and obtains an unambiguous solution. Further, he concludes that there exists a harmonic reference frame which is determined uniquely apart from a Lorentz transformation if suitable supplementary conditions are imposed. It is known that wave equations keep the same form under Lorentz transformations. Thus, we speculate that Fock's special harmonic reference frames may have provided us a clue to derive the Einstein's equations in some special class of non-inertial reference frames. Following this clue, generalized Einstein's equations in some special non-inertial reference frames are derived based on the theory of vacuum mechanics. If the field is weak and the reference frame is quasi-inertial, these generalized Einstein's equations reduce to Einstein's equa- tions. Thus, this theory may also explain all the experiments which support the theory of general relativity. There exist some differences between this theory and the theory of general relativity. Keywords: Einstein's equations; gravitation; general relativity; principle of equivalence; gravitational aether; vacuum mechanics. I. INTRODUCTION p. 411). Theoretical interpretation of the small value of Λ is still open [6]. The Einstein's field equations of gravitation are valid 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Voigt Transformations in Retrospect: Missed Opportunities?
    Voigt transformations in retrospect: missed opportunities? Olga Chashchina Ecole´ Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France∗ Natalya Dudisheva Novosibirsk State University, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia† Zurab K. Silagadze Novosibirsk State University and Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia.‡ The teaching of modern physics often uses the history of physics as a didactic tool. However, as in this process the history of physics is not something studied but used, there is a danger that the history itself will be distorted in, as Butterfield calls it, a “Whiggish” way, when the present becomes the measure of the past. It is not surprising that reading today a paper written more than a hundred years ago, we can extract much more of it than was actually thought or dreamed by the author himself. We demonstrate this Whiggish approach on the example of Woldemar Voigt’s 1887 paper. From the modern perspective, it may appear that this paper opens a way to both the special relativity and to its anisotropic Finslerian generalization which came into the focus only recently, in relation with the Cohen and Glashow’s very special relativity proposal. With a little imagination, one can connect Voigt’s paper to the notorious Einstein-Poincar´epri- ority dispute, which we believe is a Whiggish late time artifact. We use the related historical circumstances to give a broader view on special relativity, than it is usually anticipated. PACS numbers: 03.30.+p; 1.65.+g Keywords: Special relativity, Very special relativity, Voigt transformations, Einstein-Poincar´epriority dispute I. INTRODUCTION Sometimes Woldemar Voigt, a German physicist, is considered as “Relativity’s forgotten figure” [1].
    [Show full text]
  • + Gravity Probe B
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Gravity Probe B Experiment “Testing Einstein’s Universe” Press Kit April 2004 2- Media Contacts Donald Savage Policy/Program Management 202/358-1547 Headquarters [email protected] Washington, D.C. Steve Roy Program Management/Science 256/544-6535 Marshall Space Flight Center steve.roy @msfc.nasa.gov Huntsville, AL Bob Kahn Science/Technology & Mission 650/723-2540 Stanford University Operations [email protected] Stanford, CA Tom Langenstein Science/Technology & Mission 650/725-4108 Stanford University Operations [email protected] Stanford, CA Buddy Nelson Space Vehicle & Payload 510/797-0349 Lockheed Martin [email protected] Palo Alto, CA George Diller Launch Operations 321/867-2468 Kennedy Space Center [email protected] Cape Canaveral, FL Contents GENERAL RELEASE & MEDIA SERVICES INFORMATION .............................5 GRAVITY PROBE B IN A NUTSHELL ................................................................9 GENERAL RELATIVITY — A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ....................................17 THE GP-B EXPERIMENT ..................................................................................27 THE SPACE VEHICLE.......................................................................................31 THE MISSION.....................................................................................................39 THE AMAZING TECHNOLOGY OF GP-B.........................................................49 SEVEN NEAR ZEROES.....................................................................................58
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 17 Relativity A2020 Prof. Tom Megeath What Are the Major Ideas
    4/1/10 Lecture 17 Relativity What are the major ideas of A2020 Prof. Tom Megeath special relativity? Einstein in 1921 (born 1879 - died 1955) Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Key Ideas of Special Relativity • Special Theory of Relativity (1905) • No material object can travel faster than light – Usual notions of space and time must be • If you observe something moving near light speed: revised for speeds approaching light speed (c) – Its time slows down – Its length contracts in direction of motion – E = mc2 – Its mass increases • Whether or not two events are simultaneous depends on • General Theory of Relativity (1915) your perspective – Expands the ideas of special theory to include a surprising new view of gravity 1 4/1/10 Inertial Reference Frames Galilean Relativity Imagine two spaceships passing. The astronaut on each spaceship thinks that he is stationary and that the other spaceship is moving. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/Flash/ Which one is right? Both. ClassMechanics/Relativity/Relativity.html Each one is an inertial reference frame. Any non-rotating reference frame is an inertial reference frame (space shuttle, space station). Each reference Speed limit sign posted on spacestation. frame is equally valid. How fast is that man moving? In contrast, you can tell if a The Solar System is orbiting our Galaxy at reference frame is rotating. 220 km/s. Do you feel this? Absolute Time Absolutes of Relativity 1. The laws of nature are the same for everyone In the Newtonian universe, time is absolute. Thus, for any two people, reference frames, planets, etc, 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Solution of the Interpretation Problem of Lorentz Transformations
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202007.0705.v1 Article A Solution of the Interpretation Problem of Lorentz Transformations Grit Kalies* HTW University of Applied Sciences Dresden; 1 Friedrich-List-Platz, D-01069 Dresden, [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected], Tel.: +49-351-462-2552 Abstract: For more than one hundred years, scientists dispute the correct interpretation of Lorentz transformations within the framework of the special theory of relativity of Albert Einstein. On the one hand, the changes in length, time and mass with increasing velocity are interpreted as apparent due to the observer dependence within special relativity. On the other hand, real changes are described corresponding to the experimental evidence of mass increase in particle accelerators or of clock delay. This ambiguity is accompanied by an ongoing controversy about valid Lorentz-transformed thermodynamic quantities such as entropy, pressure and temperature. In this paper is shown that the interpretation problem of the Lorentz transformations is genuinely anchored within the postulates of special relativity and can be solved on the basis of the thermodynamic approach of matter-energy equivalence, i.e. an energetic distinction between matter and mass. It is suggested that the velocity-dependent changes in state quantities are real in each case, in full agreement with the experimental evidence. Keywords: interpretation problem; Lorentz transformation; special relativity; thermodynamics; potential energy; space; time; entropy; non-mechanistic ether theory © 2020 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202007.0705.v1 2 of 25 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Relativity: a Centenary Perspective
    Special Relativity: A Centenary Perspective Clifford M. Will McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences and Department of Physics Washington University, St. Louis MO 63130 USA Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Fundamentals of special relativity 2 2.1 Einstein’s postulates and insights . ....... 2 2.2 Timeoutofjoint ................................. 3 2.3 SpacetimeandLorentzinvariance . ..... 5 2.4 Special relativistic dynamics . ...... 7 3 Classic tests of special relativity 7 3.1 The Michelson-Morley experiment . ..... 7 3.2 Invariance of c ................................... 9 3.3 Timedilation ................................... 9 3.4 Lorentz invariance and quantum mechanics . ....... 10 3.5 Consistency tests of special relativity . ......... 10 4 Special relativity and curved spacetime 12 4.1 Einstein’s equivalence principle . ....... 13 4.2 Metrictheoriesofgravity. .... 14 4.3 Effective violations of local Lorentz invariance . ........... 14 5 Is gravity Lorentz invariant? 17 arXiv:gr-qc/0504085v1 19 Apr 2005 6 Tests of local Lorentz invariance at the centenary 18 6.1 Frameworks for Lorentz symmetry violations . ........ 18 6.2 Modern searches for Lorentz symmetry violation . ......... 20 7 Concluding remarks 21 References........................................ 21 1 Introduction A hundred years ago, Einstein laid the foundation for a revolution in our conception of time and space, matter and energy. In his remarkable 1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” [1], and the follow-up note “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?” [2], he established what we now call special relativity as one of the two pillars on which virtually all of physics of the 20th century would be built (the other pillar being quantum mechanics). The first new theory to be built on this framework was general relativity [3], and the successful measurement of the predicted deflection of light in 1919 made both Einstein the person and relativity the theory internationally famous.
    [Show full text]
  • A Geometric Introduction to Spacetime and Special Relativity
    A GEOMETRIC INTRODUCTION TO SPACETIME AND SPECIAL RELATIVITY. WILLIAM K. ZIEMER Abstract. A narrative of special relativity meant for graduate students in mathematics or physics. The presentation builds upon the geometry of space- time; not the explicit axioms of Einstein, which are consequences of the geom- etry. 1. Introduction Einstein was deeply intuitive, and used many thought experiments to derive the behavior of relativity. Most introductions to special relativity follow this path; taking the reader down the same road Einstein travelled, using his axioms and modifying Newtonian physics. The problem with this approach is that the reader falls into the same pits that Einstein fell into. There is a large difference in the way Einstein approached relativity in 1905 versus 1912. I will use the 1912 version, a geometric spacetime approach, where the differences between Newtonian physics and relativity are encoded into the geometry of how space and time are modeled. I believe that understanding the differences in the underlying geometries gives a more direct path to understanding relativity. Comparing Newtonian physics with relativity (the physics of Einstein), there is essentially one difference in their basic axioms, but they have far-reaching im- plications in how the theories describe the rules by which the world works. The difference is the treatment of time. The question, \Which is farther away from you: a ball 1 foot away from your hand right now, or a ball that is in your hand 1 minute from now?" has no answer in Newtonian physics, since there is no mechanism for contrasting spatial distance with temporal distance.
    [Show full text]